국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 비해당처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff worked as a field player prior to his entrance, was opened to high school, and was physically and mentally healthy, such as being judged as first grade in a physical examination for a physical examination for a physical examination for a disciplinary officer. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff complained of mental pain during the boundary duty and serious duties after his entrance, and was diagnosed by the military hospital at the military hospital, there is a proximate causal relation between the two in this case and the military performance of official duties, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful.
B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff was Cirre and 2 South 1 South kyms.
The plaintiff's father was engaged in the building business.
B) On March 3, 1984, the Plaintiff entered a high school on March 3, 1984, and opened it for three years. The “actal development situation” in the daily life record includes “a person who is an exemplary student who has done his best on one’s own work,” “a person who is responsible for having his sex broken out and string,” “a person who is responsible for having his sex broken out,” and “the state of school learning development” includes “a person who is under the influence of other subjects except for sports,” “a person who has good learning attitudes, but has good learning attitudes, but has good learning attitudes, but has good learning attitude,” and “a person who is under the influence of all subjects.” 2) On June 12, 1987, the Plaintiff entered the school on July 26, 198, and was determined to have been in good faith with the mind of the draft physical examination center on July 198, 198, and was not in the military examination center on May 18, 1988.
C. On February 15, 1989, the Plaintiff does not match with the Dong fee.